Just to mention George Li earned a full ride to Oberlin Conservatory...competition driven.

The piano faculty improved years after I left..a few Russian teachers thrown into the mix.

Whether you intended it or not, that is the way many folks here interpreted your use of the word.


In retrospect, I shouldn't have suggested that "ordinary" or "average" would be acceptable terms to substitute for "mediocre." Those really aren't satisfactory descriptors either. Often, when I refer to these performers I say that they have a "rewarding" or "respectable" career - and just let it go at that.


Personally, I have very little tolerance for musical snobs and I couldn't care less about what they think.

Oh carey... I like your writing, but you really need to say "I couldn't care less". i.e. you care so little, it couldn't be any less.

Sorry!

-J

Hey - don't be sorry. Of course, you are correct !!! Edit has been made.

I'm sorry if my word was interpreted in that fashion. The substance of a message can sometimes be misconstrued- on the Internet or even in real life.


It could be argued that the level of playing occupied by the majority of professional musicians constitutes an "average" or "ordinary" (in the sense that it is a similar level to most other professionals) level. Nonetheless, I can understand why you would want to posit that the "average" concert artist is at a "respectable" and "rewarding" level. Some people might argue that it is so difficult to become a professional musician (probably much harder than it is to become a doctor or a lawyer) that even concert artists with minor, seemingly ordinary careers are at very high levels of playing (even if great artists are at much higher levels, as everything is an issue of degrees). Such an argument could claim that because you have to be at such a high level just to have a chance at being a professional musician, high-level playing on the part of a concert artist may seem "ordinary" simply because it is displayed by so many professionals.

The other side of the argument would be that all musicians should be assessed in relation to the cream of the crop: the top artists. It appears that Schonberg and Horowitz were examples of people who had very exacting standards when evaluating musicians. Schonberg said that out of all Horowitz's pupils, only Janis, Graffman, and Davis had respectable careers. Apparently, in the mind of Schonberg, someone like Fiorillo- who became a professor at Temple University and a performer of relatively modest success- did not have a respectable career. Horowitz appears to have had similar views, as he was only willingly to publicly acknowledge a select few of his pupils. Janis claimed that if a student was a success, Horowitz was quick to acknowledge him, but if he wasn't, then Horowitz would want to disassociate. Schonberg also mentioned that Horowitz could be very dismissive even in his evaluations of other great pianists. Allegedly, a performance that someone else might describe as fairly spectacular, Horowitz might only describe as "not bad."

I went to school at a university with a music school, not a conservatory.

There was this series of thefts that lasted for a while. At first it was just things like wallets and purses left unattended - not particularly surprising. Then strange things started to go missing. Professors reported things taken from their studios (which had very limited access). Things like photographs of teacher's teachers, busts of composers, and decorative nicknacks were disappearing. Students were starting to fear for their instruments and take them home rather than leave them in their school lockers, just in case someone had a way in. Finally, it was discovered that the organ performance major, who was issued a key to the recital hall holding the organ, had somehow gotten a hold of a master key, and was squirreling away all of this stuff in his secondary instrument locker in the basement. Another student saw a missing item in his locker and reported him. He was taken in for a psych evaluation, and it turned out that he was actually a kleptomaniac!

Regina, do you know what they call your behavior at SomethingAwful?

They call it ***. Which is what you've done with this Horowitz and mediocrity nonsense you've got going on.

I'm so glad there is an "ignore button". I encourage everyone to follow my example. See ya, Regina.

I know who you mean, and I'm often surprised that his name hasn't come up on Piano World. I take it as proof that many people here on Piano World are slaves to the media. They know Argerich and Horowitz, and whoever won the Cliburn last time around, but they don't seem to follow local artists or seek out those lesser-known. They're content to feed on whatever YouTube and the New York Times serves up. They'll even spend time listening to people they don't like (Lang Lang) and waste time talking about him instead of looking for alternatives (Steven Spooner, Paul Barnes, Ksenia Nosikova, or Dimitri Vorobiev, to name a few excellent pianists here in the midwest with state university gigs. I could recommend a dozen more, all very, very good.)

How so? The information that I cited about Horowitz is contained in his biographies? Why would you object to accurate, published anecdotes, especially since they lend credence to the notion that great musicians have very high standards when evaluating other musicians? What is your remonstrance to a parsing of the denotative and connotative meanings of "mediocre?"

If you do not agree with others' opinion, you do not need to call name or be nasty.
You can just ignore.

Why does this discussion seem really painful to you? It seems like really stroke the core of your life.

I agree with Regina that in general, except for personal choice, a successful concert pianist would have concerts in big and prestigious hall, play with big famous orchestra. Those who have many concert but in community colleges are not considered a successful concert pianist.

This is the order of the level of success of people who dedicated their life to piano:

1. Big artists who play in big halls and with big orchestras, for example Kissin, Horowitz, Lang Lang, Zimmerman, Pollini, Uchida etc
2. Artists who won competition but did not really get big contracts, but still play with pretty big orchestra, Uehara, Chen, etc
3. Artists who won small competitions and did minor concerts here and there.
4. Piano professors at major conservatories, Juilliard, Oberlin, New England
5. Piano professors at second tier conservatories or universities.
5. Piano professors at state colleges.
6. Piano teachers who are in high demand ( well known in the piano teacher associations because many of their students won competition).
7. Piano teachers who have their own studios.
8. Piano teachers who go to students house.
9. Piano teachers who do not have enough students so that they have a lot of time to hang out in piano world.

Now is your chance.

yeah seriously...who is he?!

This is not necessarily true. I think the world would be in shock if it had an objective view of how many first-rate artists are living in obscurity.

For instance, I doubt very few people - if any on this forum - have ever heard of the pianist Natan Brand. He was an Israeli who lived in NY, studied at Juilliard and Mannes, and taught privately for a bit in New York and for a small amount of time at a University in Oklahoma. Yet in my humble opinion he is one of the most electrifying pianists I have ever laid ears upon, with one of the most astounding techniques ever. Give these a listen for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS4msgFN1JM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jSuROp8R7c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-WIjIc8ecA

or Emile Naoumoff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laAzrnhPmok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pG6fn26THY

or Wael Farouk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBueMuAxPIA

or Hoang Pham
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj1ots3E18Y

Funniest thing is, they were all/are all struggling to pay rent, and are barely known outside their circle of academia or students they teach. You are correct when you talk in terms of a "major career" based on amount of concerts played per year and venues played in, but as far as artistic merit is concerned, I don't know how much less "great" they are than those mentioned..

This reminds me of a spirit soaring concert given here in Fresno by an unknown, Pierluigi Camicia.. and he brought a clack of students who sang Verdi Arias at the reception for him in Fresno. He came from some remote part of Italy..Never heard from again. I'll have to hunt him down.

I like hearing about "unknown" artists and pieces.

The question of "Horowitz versus unknown mediocrity" reminds me of a story in the first book of Kings in the Bible. Elijah the prophet was depressed because he thought he was *the only* faithful servant of God in all of Israel. Then God answered and said, "Not so, I have 7,000 other faithful servants like you, hidden throughout the land." Elijah was the only *high-profile* one but it didn't mean he was the *only* one.

The principle of the story can apply to musicians as well-- having the essence of great musicianship does not necessarily mean a high profile. And having a high profile is not the only proof of great musicianship.

I'm still in awe of John, the 14-year-old phenomenal sight reader who was on Mrs. McLellan's piano student roster, along with me. This (then) 16-year-old couldn't have been more impressed by Horowitz! I think it's real-life examples like John who inspire us to work on our own skills, as much as recordings by great artists. (I wasn't that much inspired at the time, as I quit lessons soon after seeing a display of his sight-reading!)

It really astounds me that some feel that great artistry in pianism is determined by fame, by the number of concerts performed and by the venues in which those concerts are performed.

As Gray said :

Full many a gem of purest ray serene
The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.


(Thomas Gray, "Elegy Written in a Country Church-Yard")

Regards,

Regina, I have nothing against Horowitz or how amazing he was. We all know he was one of the best pianists alive in the 20th century. What I do have an issue with is your continual agenda. It seems like every single thread in which you are involved needs a mention of Horowitz and how he would have done it.

It’s rude to Piaffe, who came here to ask about the experiences of people in music school, to enter a thread, denigrate the faculty at all but one of the institutions we have studied at, and then talk about how Horowitz was the best. It’s rude to the rest of us to insinuate that we’ve all been taught by inferior teachers. We’re actively sharing our experiences at school and there’s no need for you to hijack and turn the thread to something else entirely.

If you want to talk about Horowitz, then start a thread entitled “Horowitz is objectively the best pianist who’s ever lived.” You can debate there about Horowitz all you want. That’s the venue for it. This thread is not.

A concert pianist’s life is very difficult, with lots of travel and little time for family or friends. I do not blame anyone who’s decided they aren’t going to have that life. There are so many people with tremendous talent in this world, but only a fraction of a fraction will end up being “concert pianists.” There isn’t anything wrong with choosing a lifestyle more conducive to, well, life.

Regina, you seem to be completely, blissfully ignorant of the sheer amount of luck needed in order to be a concert pianist. We’ve already seen that competition winners do not go on to have storied careers. It takes the right mix of talent, work, and LUCK to get to the top. Winning a competition is not enough. Studying with the right teacher is not enough. There is an element of chance involved. Is the time right for another ingénue? Do they have the right manager? Do they even live in the right city? Who ever heard of a world famous concert pianist from Boise, Idaho?

If you haven’t read Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers, you need to.

As for you, Ronald, I take umbrage with the complete and utter derailment of the thread by Regina. I did not call Regina names. I have not ever insulted someone verbally that way, because PianoWorld has a certain protocol, which I have mostly followed with the exception of my previous post, which was edited for profanity and not for insults. You’re the one who is misunderstanding me.

Me, I had a lovely experience at university. My core curriculum was not the same as others; I had an extra class on top of the standard history, theory, and aural skills trio. The piano aspect of it was just not as rosy as the rest. Whatever grievances I had with my teacher in undergrad have been dealt with. I’m at peace with what happened. It was a wonderful teaching experience in that it taught me where the line in the sand should be drawn.

And that’s all I’m going to say on the matter. From now on I’ll regale Piaffe with more tales of drunken debauchery while in music school. Does alcohol improve or detract from a performance? We shall find out.

I did read an article that talked about Gladwell's "10,000-Hour Rule". It was certainly interesting data, as it suggested that talent has little- if anything- to do with success, and that deliberate practice is the key. Critics of the theory have argued that individuals lacking sufficient talent will not become high-level successes- even after engaging in a copious amount of deliberate practice. I wonder which side of the argument is correct. Sometimes it can be frustrating when two seemingly plausible, but contradictory, theories are presented, making it difficult to assess which one is accurate.


Although I often use Horowitz as my musical model, I do not have any pro-Horowitz agenda. I simply discuss topics that interest me. If mentioning Horowitz or any other musician is relevant or helps to clarify my point, I may mention him. People may agree or disagree with Horowitz's or another musician's way of doing things. Any examples that I cite are solely for the purpose of expressing and/or supporting my own viewpoints, just as anyone else might do to elaborate on his or her ideas. In other words, I express my opinions (which may involve references to Horowitz, Schonberg, Rubinstein, etc.), and people will either agree or disagree with them- as is the case with any other tenet expresessed here.

The notion that I mention Horowitz in every single thread is false. I recently posted on a Mozart thread and made no mention of Horowitz. I also posted on threads such as Mozart/Beethoven, Yoheved Kaplinsy, and "Is it possible" without a single mention of Horowitz.


My entrance to the thread was not at all for the purpose of demeaning anyone, but simply to raise an inquiry about why conservatory students supposedly might not be concert pianist material: an issue that was raised in the thread. When my views were questioned, I merely tried to make a distinction between certain types of careers, pointing out that one type is a much more realistic option for many performance majors. As I clarified earlier, my purpose was not to denigrate those who have careers of a smaller scope than the great artists. I was merely trying to explain that there is a substantial difference between the two types of musical careers mentioned, and that the former is much easier to obtain (even though it obviously isn't easy to obtain any professional engagements).

In other words, I was postulating that many conservatory students may have a realistic chance- through sedulous effort and preparation- of obtaining a so-called minor career, even if they aren't capable of enjoying careers of the Rubinstein or Argerich variety. I was not saying that people who have lesser careers than the greats are incompetent. To the contrary, I pointed out that they may work very hard and accomplish much more than a Music Education major could ever hope to accomplish. A professional career- even an obscure one- can be thought of as a significant achievement for any musician, especially given how much competition there is. I was merely pointing out that there are degrees to everything in life and that careers of a lesser degree seem to be within the grasp of certain conservatory students who may not be capable of having world-class careers.


I have not said that anyone has been taught by inadequate teachers. My points were merely for the purpose of explaining that certain types of careers are more within the grasp of many conservatory students.

My actions do not constitue a hijacking of the thread (and I certainly would never willfully engage in anything of that sort), as I initially responded to a specific point about conservatory students: the issue of whether all or many of them are concert-level material. As a result of responses to my viewpoints, I issued further posts clarifying my position and answering necessary questions. It was all the result of a relevant point raised on the first page, not any attempt at straying off on a tangent.


I completely agree with that, and I do not doubt that a talented individual may not be interested in putting forth all of the arduous work that is necessary for a career. There are many child prodigies who did not pursue music as adults, simply because they felt that music was not provide them with financial security. A violinist who once was the concertmaster of the Julliard Orchestra is now an attorney. Everyone must choose his or her own path, as only you yourself know what is most likely to make you happy.


I am aware of the fact that luck and connections can help a musician, and I even pointed out that fame is not always proportional to artistry. It would be a non-sequitir to say that because a pianist is famous, he must be great. It is conceivable that someone who is not a worthy artist may- through some seemingly odd cirumstances- obtain a high level of success. With that said, if a pianist is famous, there is going to be a higher statistical probability that he or she is great. If you examine most famous pianists (e.g Rubinstein, Rachmaninov, Hofmann, Lhevinne, Argerich, Ricther, Arrau, Gilels, etc.), their fame is well-justified. While being famous does not guarantee that a pianist is great, it certainly increases the likelihood that he or she is great. Thus, through inductive reasoning and the calculation of statistics, we can conclude that a famous pianist is more likely to be great than an obscure pianist is.

That doesn't mean that it's impossible for an obscure pianist to be a great artist; only that it would be the exception, rather than the rule. As I mentioned earlier, failing to match the greats certainly does not necessitate that the pianist is without skill. It only indicates that his or her skill is not of the same magnitude as that of the top artists.

While it's true that some artists may never receive their due, for whatever reason, it seems inconceivable that skill on the level of a Rachmaninov or a Hofmann would be left unrecognized. If someone played that well, it's all but inevitable that he or she would eventually obtain international recognition. In The Glorious Ones, Harold Schonberg related a relevant anecdote about Kirsten Flagstad. He pointed out that her voice and artistry must not have been completely developed until she was almost forty, as it wasn't until her Met debut that she created a sensation. Schonberg claimed that the public and the critics aren't deaf, insisting that it is inconceivable that Flagstad could have sung as well in Europe as she did at the Met without creating a sensation. That supports the notion that artistry of the highest magnitude is unlikely to go unnoticed.


Do you believe that the majority of obscure performers are as great as renowned artists? I can imagine that there may be a minority of performers with minor careers who deserve much more, but my personal experience indicates that the majority of obscure performers do not fall into such a category. The many unknown pianists that I've listened to have all sounded considerably less impressive than the likes of Argerich, Richter, Serkin, et al.

Opus Maximum, I've heard Natan Brand before, and I agree that he has done some great things, both technically and musically. The b minor scherzo that you posted had a good deal of visceral excitement in the fast section. He also played the slow section beautifully and delicately. I especially liked the way that he brought out the upper voice, sounding like the echo of bells, over the melody of the slow section. Brand did make appearances at Carnegie Hall, but I agree that he deserved more recognition than what he received. However, do you view the pianists that you mentioned as reflective of the abilities of the majority of obscure pianists?

Regina, you have so much to learn.

What issues do I need to learn about? Are you referring specifically to the quality of obscure performers compared to famous performers?

A former professor, who has performed locally and nationally and on national public radio, told me that it is very difficult to achieve a career of international prominence (where you can make a living solely as a performer), but that many people have the ability to make a living through a combination of teaching and performing (albeit not at a level of international prominence). That explanation sounds reasonable to me.

Now I know why I didn't survive more than 3 weeks in a conservatory program in a state university. I don't drink coffee, except decaf. I don't smoke. I drink very little alcohol. I am not competitive by nature. I generally obey the rules. I felt like the music I loved was being shoved down my throat and the joy was being strangled. That plus the competitive, self aggrandizing nature of my fellow students drove me to run away with relief. Decades later, I have some regrets but it just wasn't a good fit for me.

You have to be really crazy. Almost insane. And you have to be this obsessive-compulsive person to be successful and survive, haha.

Yep. I got through school without coffee, cigarettes, or alcohol.

But I agree with Pogo about the crazy obsessive-compulsive thing. I made time for friends and having a life, but I also spent a lot of nights breaking into the music building after hours (sometimes literally crawling through open windows) and practicing until 2am.

It also helped that I was woefully ignorant. This was in the days before YouTube and I went to a smaller school in Missouri. I happily slaved away at Beethoven Op. 14#2 as a junior, not realizing it was considered one of the "easier" sonatas that some junior high kids can play. I also dove headfirst into things way over my head (Brahms first concerto in the same semester), not realizing that it's considered difficult. When you don't know how difficult (or easy) something is, it becomes much easier to work on it, because all you can do is set goals based on what you can do instead of trying to set goals based what others can do.

That sounds just like me. In my ignorance, I just played and played whatever I liked for decades, blissfully ignorant of grade levels and difficulty. Imagine my astonishment when I was put into the most advanced group in summer camp. I was sure they would uncover me as an impostor. I was even more astonished when I discovered I belonged there. Also, in my case, you must never, never tell me I can't do something because it is too difficult. That just makes me mad and even more determined to succeed. I just have no tolerance for the imbecilic egos and cruelty I encountered in the staff and students at the conservatory. Music for me was my private joy.

Well, I'm still a coffee fiend, still smoke, but don't drink nearly as much haha. Obsessive-compulsive? What do you think? I'll just say there is no such thing as quitting...you NEVER EVER STOP! Was I woefully ignorant? No. I knew when I was in over my head and took it on anyway. I've never cared what "grade" someone else assigns a work, but Kreisler sure makes an excellent point here and it's one that a lot of members here should pay attention to.

Coffee got me through uni. (And, alas, where I learned how to drink and smoke a non-tobacco related substance.)

Today I gave the Superbowl a miss and instead elected to attend a graduate organ recital at St. Mark's Cathedral. The opening item was Bach's overwhelmingly awesome Passacaglia & Fugue in C minor. I studied it at uni without a clue as to just how difficult that work was, and hearing it today made me realize how foolish I was. I don't think I saw much beyond the notes... which I managed to play.

I learned so much that was new to me this afternoon. I would like to restudy it someday.

Oh I'm a coffee fiend now.

Hard as it is for students to believe, life is MUCH more difficult after school. You have to impose discipline on yourself, keep the quality/drive going without a teacher, and live on real money instead of loans. And bad performances mean you don't get asked back. (After a bad performance at a school, your teacher and/or friends console you, you drown your sorrows in a beer, chalk it up to experience and be thankful the audience was probably full of people who already like you.)

And if you're on faculty at a college or university, chances are you'll end up doing stuff you don't want to do in the name of prestige and a stable(ish) salary - teaching piano class to freshman trumpet majors, go to meetings and talk about how to distribute a painfully small amount of scholarship money, writing a grant proposal to convince the provost's office to fund your CD recording that will end up on a label with poor distribution that only about 20 people will listen to...

Oh Kreisler, don't you delegate the undergrad piano classes to the grad students?

(I was totally overworked and underpaid.)

Edit: After school was done I jettisoned the alcohol (and by proxy the smokes), and after some hand-wringing, the coffee as well.

I spend too much on my morning latte(s) -I should buy stock in Starbucks or Tully's- but of course that is what one does in Seattle.

Which is not intended to make light of your post. Since moving from the UK, I have not been involved in the music scene at all, and regretfully, I do not practise as often as I should. But in some respects I'm a lot happier, and my appreciation of music has grown exponentially. The organ recital at St. Mark's Cathedral this afternoon was a healthy and satisfying experience, and I was grateful to be a part of it.